Re: Building server without Apache

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)berkus(dot)org>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Building server without Apache
Date: 2017-01-12 05:50:32
Message-ID: CABUevEx3TRwEQCQbgOhEmP_1=tq+LfZGv7XBK3YhvjYmXNH1nQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

On Jan 12, 2017 4:56 AM, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)berkus(dot)org> wrote:
> Pgadmin gurus:
>
> I'm trying to create a canonical container image for pgAdmin4 Server.
> However, using Apache is kind of heavyweight for a container. Has
> anyone run pgAdmin4 against something lighter weight?

If memory serves, the reason why we recommend Apache is that at the
time I last tested, it was the only one of Apache, Lighttpd and Nginx
which would support single-process, multi-thread WSGI apps.

Having a single process is essential, due to the global connection
manager used by pgAdmin - it's the only way we can guarantee affinity
between the user session and the database session. If you can make
that work with servers other than Apache (someone recently suggested
Gunicorn might be able to help), then I'd love to hear about it. There
are no other special requirements of pgAdmin, so really that's all
that stands in your way.

Uwsgi might also be worth investigating. It's pretty light and supports an
hybrid model where ISTM it would work if you just set number of processes
to 1 (but I haven't tried it with pgadmin specifically.

/Magnus

In response to

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message George Gelashvili 2017-01-12 14:48:05 Re: Driver Module
Previous Message Fahar Abbas 2017-01-12 05:47:13 Re: PATCH: RM# 1679 - Background process for "restore" not reporting status back to pgAdmin